G.R. No. 167280 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, VS. SPS. ELMOR V. BANCE AND ROSARIO J. BANCE. DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissed the case. [16] Upon reconsideration, however, RTC Branch 32 ordered the issuance of the writ. [17] Petitioner sought reconsideration, but it was denied. On July 22, 2003, respondents filed a petition [18] with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the September 11, 2000 Order of RTC Branch 4 on the ground of extrinsic fraud. On October 29, 2004, the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner employed extrinsic fraud when it deliberately withheld the true nature of its claims against respondents in foreclosing the mortgage and securing the writ. It also added that petitioner failed to state in the certification of non-forum shopping attached to the petition for the issuance of the writ, the pendency of Civil Case No. 00-97252 in RTC Branch 32. In conclusion, it declared the foreclosure of mortgage null and void and annulled the September 11, 2000 Order of RTC Branch 4. [19] The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads: WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby GRANTED . The Order of respondent court dated September 11, 2000 is hereby ANNULLED. SO ORDERED . [20] Petitioner sought reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence, this petition, ascribing the following errors to the Court of Appeals: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO RESPONDENTS SPOUSES BANCES PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 ORDER OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA BRANCH IV (04) INSTITUTED UNDER RULE 47 OF THE 1997 REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CONSIDERING THAT A WRIT OF POSSESSION CASE FILED UNDER ACT NO. 3135, AS AMENDED, IS NOT AN ORDINARY ACTION. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ANNULLING THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 ORDER OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA BRANCH IV (04) GRANTING THE WRIT OF POSSESSION TO PETITIONER METROBANK ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER METROBANK COMMITTED EXTRINSIC OR COLLATERAL FRAUD UNDER SECTION 2, RULE 47 OF THE 1997 REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING RESPONDENTS SPOUSES BANCES PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF THE ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA BRANCH IV (04) GRANTING THE WRIT OF POSSESSION (LRC CAD. RECORD NO. 278) CONSIDERING THAT IT IS AN EX PARTE PROCEEDING AND ITS ISSUANCE IS MINISTERIAL UNDER ACT NO. 3135, AS AMENDED, AND THERE IS A PENDING CIVIL CASE NO. 00-97252 FILED BY RESPONDENTS SPOUSES BANCE AGAINST PETITIONER METROBANK BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA BRANCH XXXII (32) FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF PROMISSORY NOTES, REAL ESTATE MORTGAGES, AGREEMENTS, CONTINUING SURETY AGREEMENT, EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, ETC. [21] IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONER BANK GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING WHEN IT FILED A PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF POSSESSION BEFORE [THE] REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA BRANCH IV WHEN THERE WAS A PENDING ACTION ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH XXXII. [22] Simply, the issues are: (1) Did the Court of A